Predatory publishing encompasses a range of unethical practices employed by certain publishers, journals, and conferences to exploit researchers.
A predatory publisher is an entity that offers publication services without adhering to recognized academic and ethical standards. They may publish multiple low-quality journals, books, or organize conferences that lack proper peer review and editorial oversight, primarily aiming to generate profit rather than contribute to scholarly communication.
Reference: Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers
Predatory publishing poses significant risks to academic researchers, including:
Damage to Reputation: Publishing in predatory journals can lead to the marginalisation of a researcher’s work, as it may be dismissed by peers, academic institutions, and funding bodies due to the lack of rigorous academic standards.
Financial Exploitation: Researchers may incur substantial, often hidden, publication fees imposed by predatory publishers, leading to the depletion of research funds with little or no academic return.
Career Impact: Engaging with predatory publishing can have a detrimental effect on an academic’s professional trajectory, as their association with low-quality venues can diminish their credibility and hinder future opportunities for collaboration, funding, or advancement.
Supporting Data:
Source: COPE Guidelines
Identifying predatory publishers can be challenging, but several indicators and tools can assist researchers in making informed decisions.
Red Flags are specific warning signs or indicators that suggest a journal, publisher, or conference may be predatory. These are actionable items that researchers can look out for to identify potential predatory practices.
Comparison involves contrasting legitimate publishing practices with predatory ones. This helps researchers understand the fundamental differences and assess the legitimacy of a publisher or journal.
The 16 Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing, developed collaboratively by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, can be categorised to help identify predatory practices across different publishing domains.
|
Principle |
Legitimate Practices |
Predatory Practices |
|
Website |
Provides clear and accurate information, regularly updated. |
Contains misleading or false information; mimics reputable journals. |
|
Peer Review Process |
Clearly described and consistently implemented. |
Opaque or nonexistent peer review; guarantees manuscript acceptance. |
|
Editorial Board |
Editorial board members are verifiable experts. |
Board members are unverifiable, fabricated, or irrelevant. |
|
Indexing |
Indexed in credible databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science). |
False claims of indexing or fabricated impact factors. |
|
Author Fees |
Clearly stated upfront and reasonable. |
Hidden or excessive fees revealed post-acceptance. |
|
Access |
Articles are accessible as described (e.g., Open Access). |
Articles are inaccessible despite claims; unclear access policies. |
|
Archiving |
Content is preserved through recognised services (e.g., CLOCKSS, Portico). |
No digital preservation or archiving policy. |
|
Principle |
Legitimate Practices |
Predatory Practices |
|
Ownership and Management |
Ownership is clearly stated and transparent. |
Ownership details are missing, misleading, or unclear. |
|
Revenue Sources |
Transparent business models and revenue streams. |
Unclear or unethical revenue practices; linked to editorial decisions. |
|
Copyright and Licensing |
Policies are transparent, allowing authors to retain key rights. |
Policies are unclear or force authors to relinquish excessive rights. |
|
Advertising |
Advertisements are separate from editorial decisions and clearly marked. |
Advertising influences editorial decisions or is misleading. |
|
Direct Marketing |
Targeted and professional communication. |
Aggressive, spam-like emails with exaggerated claims. |
|
Principle |
Legitimate Practices |
Predatory Practices |
|
Website |
Provides accurate event details, including location, agenda, and sponsors. |
Lacks details about the event or mimics reputable conferences. |
|
Speaker Line-Up |
Keynote speakers are recognised experts with verifiable affiliations. |
Speakers are fabricated or credentials are exaggerated. |
|
Peer Review |
Papers undergo a clear and rigorous review process. |
No review process or superficial evaluation of submissions. |
|
Registration Fees |
Fees are proportional to the conference scope and disclosed upfront. |
Exorbitant or hidden registration fees. |
|
Indexing |
Conference proceedings are indexed in credible databases. |
False claims of indexing or non-existent proceedings. |
|
Event Quality |
Recognised and endorsed by academic or professional bodies. |
Poorly organised or newly created conferences without academic recognition. |
Reference: Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing
A Checklist provides a practical, step-by-step guide that researchers can use to evaluate the legitimacy of journals, publishers, books, chapters, and conferences. It serves as a quick reference tool to ensure all critical aspects are considered before submission or participation.
Description:
A visual tool to help researchers assess whether a journal is likely predatory by answering simple questions such as:
Source: Think. Check. Submit
Reference:
Predatory publishing affects not only individual researchers but also academic institutions and the broader public.
Damage to Reputation: Publishing in predatory journals can lead to the marginalisation of a researcher’s work, as it may be dismissed by peers, academic institutions, and funding bodies due to the lack of rigorous academic standards.
Financial Exploitation: Researchers may incur substantial, often hidden, publication fees imposed by predatory publishers, leading to the depletion of research funds with little or no academic return.
Career Impact: Engaging with predatory publishing can have a detrimental effect on an academic’s professional trajectory, as their association with low-quality venues can diminish their credibility and hinder future opportunities for collaboration, funding, or advancement.
Source: Shen & Björk, 2015
Sources:
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Principles of Transparency
UNESCO Guidelines on Avoiding Predatory Journals
UNESCO Guidelines
COPE Discussion Document on Predatory Publishing
COPE Guidelines
"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" by Bohannon, J. (2013). Science.
Science Article
"Predatory Publishing: The Dark Side of Open Access" by Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. (2019). Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions.
Journal Article
"The Rise of Predatory Publishing in Academic Research" by Smith, R. (2016). Research Integrity and Peer Review.
Research Article